MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924261604 · doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8793

Are Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologies Crucial to Our Understanding of Spinal Conditions?

2019· article· en· W2924261604 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca J. Crawford, Maryse Fortin, Kenneth A. Weber, Andrew C. Smith, James M. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear magnetic resonanceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synopsis Persistent spinal (traumatic and nontraumatic) pain is common and contributes to high societal and personal costs globally. There is an acknowledged urgency for new and interdisciplinary approaches to the condition, and soft tissues, including skeletal muscles, the spinal cord, and the brain, are rightly receiving increased attention as important biological contributors. In reaction to the recent suspicion and questioned value of imaging-based findings, this paper serves to recognize the promise that the technological evolution of imaging techniques, and particularly magnetic resonance imaging, is allowing in characterizing previously less visible morphology. We emphasize the value of quantification and data analysis of several contributors in the biopsychosocial model for understanding spinal pain. Further, we highlight emerging evidence regarding the pathobiology of changes to muscle composition (eg, atrophy, fatty infiltration), as well as advancements in neuroimaging and musculoskeletal imaging techniques (eg, fat-water imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion imaging, magnetization transfer imaging) for these important soft tissues. These noninvasive and objective data sources may complement known prognostic factors of poor recovery, patient self-report, diagnostic tests, and the “-omics” fields. When combined, advanced “big-data” analyses may assist in identifying associations previously not considered. Our clinical commentary is supported by empirical findings that may orient future efforts toward collaborative conversation, hypothesis generation, interdisciplinary research, and translation across a number of health fields. Our emphasis is that magnetic resonance imaging technologies and research are crucial to the advancement of our understanding of the complexities of spinal conditions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(5):320–329. Epub 26 Mar 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8793

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0140.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical TherapySame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207